Global Game Theory and Our Real-World Prisoner’s Dilemma
How COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates are Designed to Get Us to Sell One Another Out
Editor’s note: I feel the need to reiterate that I write this from a place that is agnostic about whether or not you, dear reader, have chosen to get vaccinated or not. You have every right to choose that. And if you did, I hope it was at a point in time when it was absolutely and freely your choice, and not under duress or pressure from someone in a position of authority over you.
This isn’t about the vaccine. It’s about mandates and punitive measures around them, and the real impact that they are having on your friends and neighbors.
My partner and I were recently discussing how everyone is in self-preservation mode with regards to the mandate and the vaccines, and this struck me as true on a number of levels.
Of course, if you actively choose to take the vaccine, that is a measure of self-preservation unto itself, as you’re making a choice to avoid contracting COVID-19. And perhaps you made this choice well before any evidence of waning efficacy was available and before so many breakthrough infections were known.
And if you’re actively choosing to avoid the vaccine, or even if you’re simply among the “hesitant,” then presumably there’s something about the vaccine you’re weary of, and/or you’ve made a calculation that the vaccine poses more risk than benefit to you (for example, you’re COVID-recovered and are relying on the immunity conferred by your prior infection, for which there is strong documented evidence).
These are both understandable choices. And they should have always remained just that: choices. But then the government and the powers that be in employers and schools across the country and around the world decided to intervene and make a choice far more complicated (even if you’d already decided to get the shot!).
They’ve put us ALL into a prisoner’s dilemma of sorts, albeit a much messier, more clusterf*cked version.
As a reminder, the prisoner’s dilemma goes something like this:
The authorities take two people in for questioning on a major charge. They don’t have an actual solid case against them on this charge, although they feel they have enough to convict them on a less serious offense. However, if they get these people to confess (whether or not they committed that main offense), then they can prosecute. So they offer each person a bargain.
The possible outcomes of that bargain are as follows:
If person A and person B betray each other and both confess, they will each get 5 years in prison.
If person A betrays B, but B doesn’t cooperate with the authorities, then person A is set free and person B will serve 20 years in prison.
If person B betrays A, but A doesn’t cooperate with the authorities, then person B is set free and person A will serve 20 years in prison.
But if both person A and person B collaborate with each other, and do not cooperate with the authorities, the worst the authorities can do is slap them with the minor charge, and they each serve only 6 months.
In this game, the individual outcome for betraying the other person is a greater reward (zero prison time) than the individual outcome for cooperating with the other person (6 months), but the penalty for the other person is far greater than it would have been, whether they both kept quiet or they both confessed. (20 years versus 6 months or 5 years).
So in self-preservation mode, working with the authorities and selling out the other person appears to be a no-brainer: the individual gets off scott-free, but there’s still a 20 year sentence being served elsewhere.
And if both parties give into the authorities they each face a greater punishment than if either one sells the other out. So going purely down the self-preservation mode seems to still be the right choice in the moment for them.
But, ultimately, it’s collaborating with one another that has the greatest collective net benefit. If both parties don’t give in and stick together, in 6 months, both are free from jail. Nightmare over. The “worst” that the authorities could do was very little.
But to the individual, the cost feels too high, so people sell one another out, and ultimately give the authorities more leverage for greater punishment than they ever would have had to begin with.
The mandates, and compliance with them, put us in a collective prisoner’s dilemma. The authorities are playing a game with us. They have told us that shots in arms are needed everywhere without question, and compliance is not only mandatory, it’s virtuous. And conversely non-compliance is not only “bad” or “wrong,” but that non-compliance will result in major punitive action, job loss, social stigma, diminished economic prospects, restricted movement (the list goes on and on depending on where you are any how many people are willing to sell you out).
Although this doesn’t apply to all, if you’ve already gotten your shots, then you may be very likely to comply and tacitly support the mandatory measures, even if you disagree with them. Why? Because if you stand with those not complying you may be questioned and maybe even labeled an anti-vaxxer (I know that doesn’t make sense, but believe me, it’s happening), or a conspiracy theorist, or some “extreme right-winger” that cares more about freedom than the public good (there’s more nonsense to unpack here too, but that’s for another post). So if you’re against the mandates, even if you’re fully vaccinated by today’s definition, the personal cost to you seems too high to speak out against them. You take a social hit. So instead you shut up and go on, leaving others, and the idea of personal choice and medical freedom behind to suffer the ever-growing consequences.
If you haven’t yet been vaccinated by this point, you presumably did not want the shot. But the mandates are changing the equation for you. Not only will you face the social backlash mentioned above, but the mandates are creating a situation where if you remain unvaccinated, you are being faced with life-altering punishment that threatens your ability to provide for yourself and your family. To feed them, clothe them, and pay rent.
If many coalesce, then it leaves behind the truly convicted. Those who remain committed to freedom of choice for EVERYONE will bear the brunt of the punishment, and so will the idea that we can stand in our freedom and our choice in a democratic society. That idea dies the moment we reach mass compliance.
But if everyone who were truly against the mandates – vaccinated, unvaccinated, hesitant, accepting, pro-shot, anti-shot – ALL stood up, the collective punishment would be minimal, and we could all begin to move forward, without the molestation of our freedom to choose and the ability to consent (or not) with a clear head, devoid of threat or coercion. As far as I see it, we’ve all already served MORE than the minimum sentence they offered, and two weeks turned into two years. Two shots are turning into three. It’s up to us to end this and support one another before the collective punishments continue to grow exponentially.
So I implore you, regardless of your vaccination status, DO NOT stand down from this fight. Cooperate with your friends and neighbors. Not with those who seek to divide and conquer and punish. They have moved the goalposts so many times and they keep relying on our penchant for self-preservation to keep doing so with impunity.
Cooperate with your fellow human. Stop the collective punishments. Take a hit, in solidarity with others, so that the future is better. Take a hit in the short-term so that the nightmare is over for everyone in the long-run.
Don’t be a prisoner.
My partner and I have also launched a joint project at NahNahBlackSheep.com. I’ve also shared this post there. It represents each of our voices.
Feel free to check it out if you’re so inclined.
Global Game Theory and Our Real-World Prisoner’s Dilemma
This relates to your other article https://undividedattention.substack.com/p/how-can-we-have-thoughtful-productive I think: we have to do our best to maintain connections with the opposite side of our vaccinated status:
unvaccinated maintain contact / relationship with vaccinated
vaccinated maintain contact / relationship with unvaccinated
This is the only way we can end up having any sort of conversation to break the spell woven by the powers that be.
I think its worth mentioning in the classic prisoners dilemma, the 2 prisoners are not in contact with each other. A has no way of knowing if B has sold him out, and vice versa. It usually plays out that, without any further information, each man assumes the worst about the other, and it becomes a race to sell each other out first.
Community and solidarity destroys their little game, which is why it is so important for those of us in the hopper at the moment.